[12] O Faris Al-Hammadi! The time has arrived for your deceitful and absurd statements to be unveiled for all to see! [Cautioning Our Beloved Youth Regarding Individuals Whose Statements and Stances Lack Clarity and Precision]
In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.
Imam Al-Bukhaari [may Allah have mercy upon him] said: Chapter: “Avoiding the use of tricks. And everybody will get the reward according to his intention in Imaan (belief) and other than it”. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions, and every person will get the reward according to what he intended. So, whoever emigrates for Allaah and His Messenger, then his emigration will be for Allaah and His Messenger, and whoever emigrates to take a worldly benefit or for a woman to marry, then his emigration will be for what he emigrated for”. [Al-Bukhaari Number 6953]
Imam Abdul Azeez Bin Baaz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “Trickery has no place in Ibaadaat or Mu’aamalaat. Thus, it is essential to handle matters through the correct channels”. [1]
While it is not our assertion that general statements are entirely prohibited or devoid of merit in every instance, it is essential to recognise that there are moments when specificity is not just preferred but imperative. How can one justify the absence of detail in situations where clarity is paramount, especially when the speaker resorts to ambiguous language, thereby failing to articulate their position in contexts that demand precision? We reiterate that general speech holds value when appropriate; however, it becomes problematic when the speaker leaves others in a state of uncertainty regarding matters that necessitate transparency, as some may wield vague language as a means of evasion and to shirk accountability. In this regard, Faris alluded to a people (Salafipublications) that is widely reviled by those who disdain detailed elucidation and openness concerning the principles of the Manhaj. He then proceeded to make a nebulous statement: “I disagree with some of the things they say but they are my brothers.” This raises the question of whether Faris was simply expressing disagreement without conviction or if he was apprehensive about engaging in a substantive, knowledge-based dialogue had he chosen to clarify his true intentions. Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated in An-Nuniyyah:
قال ابن القيم: وعـلـيك بالتفصيل والتبيين فالإجمال والإطلاق دون بيان
قد أفسدا هذا الوجود وخبـطا الأذهان والآراء كل زمـان
“It is obligated to you to provide detailed explanations and clarifications, as generalisations and unrestricted (speech) without elaboration (clarification) have corrupted the existence and confused minds and opinions throughout all times”.
As we mentioned in part 11 of this series, unless Faris has retracted his statement or provided clarification—of which we are unaware at the time of writing this article—it is imperative that we remain discerning regarding such sweeping assertions. This is particularly crucial for those of us who have not observed the ambiguities during the years 1993-1995, a period when I and others were not yet guided to this blessed Salafi Manhaj. It was only in the summer of 1995 that Allah bestowed His guidance upon me and others, leading us to embrace this blessed Manhaj.
In this article, we intend to caution our brothers and sisters about the potential pitfalls of ambiguous statements, stances and affiliations, whether they originate from Faris or any future individual claiming allegiance to the Sunnah and its followers. Such vagueness can mislead the unwary observer, fostering misunderstandings and uncertainty regarding various interpretations. Reflecting on the early 1990s, when we were not yet Salafiyyoon, we recall how unclear information surrounding contentious issues often compelled us to rely on our own assumptions, prior knowledge, or personal biases. The ramifications of the Gulf War were strikingly apparent in our conversations, particularly concerning the American military’s deployment in Saudi Arabia, the persistent Algerian civil conflict, and the misplaced fervour that engulfed us with each update from a newsletter published by some students at the university mosque. This publication frequently highlighted the ambushes carried out by the so-called Mujahidin against government forces. Likewise, we had discussions about the influential senior scholars, the rulers, and those we erroneously deemed genuine scholars, such as Salman and Safar, whom we considered steadfast due to their imprisonment. The confinement of Salam and Safar, a consequence of their own transgressions, was subsequently likened to the imprisonment of Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. This comparison was employed to persuade us that only the genuine scholars of our time face imprisonment, akin to the fate of Shaikh Al-Islam. Such uncertainty lingered in our minds until it was later elucidated by the Salafiyyoon, who provided compelling evidence that Shaikh Al-Islam’s imprisonment stemmed from his steadfast defense of the Aqeedah of the Salaf, in stark contrast to Salam and Safar, who were aligned with the Qutubiyyah.
Our situation and that of others – whilst in search of truth of truth among the divergent groups of Bidah- deteriorated further as the lack of sound Aqeedah and Manhaj left individuals grappling with uncertainty, devoid of the immediate sound knowledge-based clarifications provided by the Salafiyyoon. Those who thrived in this murky and ambiguous environment sought to evade responsibility, concealed vital information, and shun commitment. Meanwhile, some deliberately employed ambiguous expressions, relishing the confusion, as it allowed them to sidestep the potential guilt and rejection that might arise when the truth eventually comes to light for the unsuspecting.
That period between 1993 and the beginning of 1995 proved to be exceptionally challenging and perilous in our pursuit of truth, as the ambiguous rhetoric coupled with misleading comparisons obscured our understanding and complicated our ability to contest the notions propagated by different groups. Consequently, we often concluded, particularly in 1994, that conclusive evidence eluded all parties. We observed that in the realm of ambiguity, even the most ludicrous assertions can be articulated by those who prioritised persuasion over truth. However, upon our encounter with the Salafiyyoon, we discovered their communication to be marked by clarity and precision. In the summer of 1995, by the grace of Allah, we were privileged to listen to speakers from Salafipublications whom we now regard as our senior teachers in the West. They eloquently shared their profound insights on a myriad of subjects, encompassing various sects, groups, organisations, and their prominent leaders, as well as the scholars’ perspectives on diverse Manhaj issues. Their reflections on the intricate themes of love and animosity, the perils of hizbiyyah, and the essential call for unity along the Salafi path were delivered with remarkable clarity and resonance. They imparted a wealth of knowledge that surpassed anything we had previously encountered, standing in stark contrast to the general rhetoric that had allowed the wrongdoers to mislead us with their narrow narratives, obscuring the truth to serve their agendas.
Therefore, we earnestly implore our beloved youth to maintain a discerning eye against the seductive nature of ambiguity and uncertainty irrespective of its intensity or the topics it may encompass, for it serves merely as a deceptive tactic designed to obscure the truth. Beware of those who resort to evasive language or vague insinuations to evade the label of dishonesty. Such individuals may offer insufficient descriptions and make nebulous negative remarks, only to withhold further clarification. This calculated reticence is intended to pique the curiosity of others, drawing them into a web of speculation that aligns with the original speaker’s thoughts, thereby securing their unwitting endorsement.
We also encountered individuals who employed vague and ambiguous language concerning unity, often due to their lack of understanding. To appear credible, they resorted to fabricating ideas, filling the voids in their knowledge with platitudes, generic assertions, and unfounded assumptions. Lacking a robust methodology akin to that of the Salafiyyoon at Salafipublications and elsewhere, they produced contradictory and disorganised statements. We once witnessed a single Salafi engaging in debate with them, armed with Sharhus Sunnah and Usoolus Sunnah, ultimately prevailing over all. Following Allah’s grace in 1995, we resolutely rejected any vague, ambiguous, or general discourse from individuals whose circumstances and positions raised doubts, based on their displayed affiliations and associations. Their ambiguous remarks misled many regarding the principles of enjoining good and forbidding evil, particularly concerning rulers, collaboration with various groups and figureheads, and the delicate balance of harm and benefit in the arena of Dawah and cooperation. It was only through Allah’s guidance, facilitated through Salafipublications, that we were steered away from this peril.
Indeed, what we discovered when we first came into contact with Salafiyyoon is that their situation is not a contest of political victories and defeats, where individuals with personal stakes chase a collective aspiration, often at the expense of honesty, clarity, and thorough explanation. These virtues are often neglected or obscured in the name of a larger ambition pursued by the hizbiyyoon. Rather, we noticed that genuine solidarity in Salafiyyah is anchored in a shared robust Aqeedah and Manhaj, and not the deceptive practice of compromise at the expense of what Allah and His Messenger have ordained. This sinful compromise, along with a reluctance to express oneself candidly due to vested interests, reflected the insecurity and timidity of those who sidestepped the challenging truths and responsibilities that this Manhaj demands. Individuals, groups and parties that resorted to such vague communication at the university often feared that clear and honest expression will lead to disagreement from those who refrained from criticising them, resulting in potential criticism. Consequently, they opted for ambiguous language, hoping that others will interpret their “generous ambiguities” in ways that aligned with their perspectives. This approach reflected the mindset of those who lacked courage and prioritised their self-interest. We ask Allah to protect us from this calamity and every other evil until we meet him Aameen.
We conclude this article with several quotes to underscore the significance of clarity. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “It is incumbent that the expression conveys the intended meaning through the appropriate terminology. Should the term be explicit or evident, the objective is achieved. However, if the term possesses dual interpretations—one valid and the other erroneous—the intended meaning must be clarified. In instances where the term suggests a flawed interpretation, it should only be employed with an explanation that mitigates any potential misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the term may mislead certain listeners into grasping an incorrect meaning, it should not be used if it is known to carry such implications, as the primary aim of communication is clarity and understanding. Conversely, if the term accurately reflects the intended meaning but some individuals remain unaware of its significance without any negligence on the speaker’s part, the responsibility lies with the listener, not the speaker”. [2]
Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “The basis of Banee Adam’s misguidance stems from ‘General Terms’ and ‘Ambiguous Meanings’ (terms, meanings, statements) that can be interpreted as either truth or falsehood when not clearly defined). This issue is exacerbated when they interact with a confused mind, particularly when coupled with misguided desires and enthusiasm. Thus, seek the guidance of the One who stabilises hearts, asking Allah to strengthen your heart in His Religion and protect you from falling into this darkness”. [3]
He, may Allah have mercy upon him, also said: “If the speaker falls short in his clarification and addresses the listener with vague terms that may encompass various interpretations, and the listener remains uncertain of the intended meaning; if this arises from the speaker’s inability, the listener is given from the speaker’s inability rather than his intent. If the speaker possesses the ability and he does not do so while it is obligated to him to do so, he gives the listener from his evil intent”. [4]
We ask Allah:
اللَّهُمَّ أَصْلِحْ لِي دِينِي الَّذِي هُوَ عِصْمَةُ أَمْرِي
وَأَصْلِحْ لِي دُنْيَايَ الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَاشِي
وَأَصْلِحْ لِي آخِرَتِي الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَادِي
وَاجْعَلِ الْحَيَاةَ زِيَادَةً لِي فِي كُلِّ خَيْرٍ
وَاجْعَلِ الْمَوْتَ رَاحَةً لِي مِنْ كُلِّ شَرٍّ
O Allah! Rectify my religion for me, which is the safeguard of my affairs; rectify my worldly [affairs], wherein is my livelihood; and rectify my Afterlife to which is my return, and make life for me [as a means of] increase in every good and make death for me as a rest from every evil. [Saheeh Muslim Number: 2720]
To be continued…InShaAllah.
[1]: An Excerpt from “Al-Hulalul Ibreeziyyah Min Ta’leeqaat Al-Baaziyyah Alaa Saheeh Al-Bukhaari’ 4/353. footnote 1”
[2] Ar-Radd Alaa Al-Bakri 702-703
[3] As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah 3/927
[4] As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mussalah 2/503